SECOND SECTION
CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 14347/17 and 130 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 July 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ayvaz and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Pauliine Koskelo, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by one hundred thirty-one Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness and length of pre-trial detention and the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of prompt information of the reasons for the applicants’ arrest and of any charge against them, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, as well as the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation and under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the searches conducted by the authorities to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması, hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the respondent Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in the case of Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 6‑14 and §§ 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court at the material time.
2. On 16 July 2016 the Ankara chief public prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into, inter alios, the suspected members of FETÖ/PDY within the judiciary, including members of high courts, in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law, on the ground that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto falling within the jurisdiction of the assize courts (further information regarding the orders issued by the chief public prosecutor’s office within the context of that investigation, as well as the ensuing suspensions and dismissals of judges and prosecutors suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY, may be found in Baş, cited above, §§ 9-10 and 15-21).
3. Following their arrest and detention in police custody on the orders of the regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on various dates, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş, cited above, § 58). The pre-trial detention decisions were issued by the magistrates’ courts located at the respective places of the applicants’ arrest. In the majority of the decisions, it was noted specifically that the criminal investigation was governed by the ordinary rules, given that the offence of which the suspects were accused, namely membership of an armed terrorist organisation, was a “continuing offence” and that there was a case of discovery in flagrante delicto governed by the relevant provisions of domestic law (see Baş, cited above, § 67, and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 30-31, 23 November 2021).
4. According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation by the first instance courts, and a few were acquitted. It appears that, for the most part, the appeal proceedings are still pending.
5. In the meantime, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of, inter alia, the alleged violation of their right to liberty and security on various accounts, including the alleged unlawfulness of their detention by reason of the disregard of the procedural safeguards afforded to members of the judiciary in domestic law, all of which were declared inadmissible (compare also Turan and Others, cited above, §§ 26-27).
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION No. 36993/197. The Government argued that the applicant in application no. 36993/19 had submitted his complaints to another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, namely the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (the “WGAD”), and invited the Court to dismiss the application as being inadmissible. In this connection, they referred to a letter entitled “joint urgent appeal”, relating to the detention of and the criminal charges against the applicant, along with twelve other individuals similarly charged with membership of the FETÖ/PDY, signed by the Vice-Chair of the WGAD and four UN Special Rapporteurs. The letter, which had been sent to the Turkish Government on 4 May 2018 and which invited the latter to submit their observations on, inter alia, the applicant’s detention, concluded as follows:
“Lastly, we would like to inform your Excellency’s Government that after having transmitted an urgent appeal such as this to the Government, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention may also transmit the individual cases to the Government through its regular procedure in order to render an opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary or not. The present communication in no way prejudges any opinion the Working Group may render. The Government is expected to respond separately to the present urgent appeal and to the communication of the Working Group under its regular procedure.”
8. The applicant contested the Government’s argument. He explained that despite having lodged an application before the WGAD, he had subsequently withdrawn it. In this regard, he provided copies of two e-mails dated 4 January and 11 March 2022 that he had submitted to the WGAD to request the discontinuation of his application, to which he had not received any reply to date.
9. The Court has previously examined the procedure before the WGAD and concluded that this Working Group was indeed a “procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention (see Peraldi v. France (dec.), no. 2096/05, 7 April 2009, and Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey, no. 23199/17, § 112, 10 November 2020; see for the “urgent action” procedure of the WGAD also Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 78-79, 10 December 2019).
10. Admittedly, and as indicated in the aforementioned letter (see paragraph 7 above), an urgent appeal may give rise to the opening of a regular procedure, in the context of which the WGAD is called upon to issue an opinion as to whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary (compare also Kavala, cited above, § 93). However, there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the WGAD has actually opened such a procedure in respect of the present applicant, or that it has rendered such an opinion (compare in this latter respect also Peraldi, cited above). The Court further notes that the applicant’s allegation that he had subsequently withdrawn his application before the WGAD has not been contested by the Government.
11. The Government’s objection under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention must accordingly be dismissed.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION12. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that they had been placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic laws governing the arrest and pre-trial detention of the members of the judiciary and disputed that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto for the purposes of section 94 of Law no. 2802 on judges and prosecutors and section 46 of the Court of Cassation Act (Law no. 2797) (see Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 67, 3 March 2020, and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 30-31, 23 November 2021).
13. The Government claimed that seven of the applicants, namely those in applications nos. 45059/18, 62714/19, 11664/20, 22923/20, 36837/20, 37234/20 and 50209/20, had not duly exhausted the available domestic remedies in relation to their complaint under Article 5 § 1, as they had not made use of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court. They further invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of all applicants for the reasons that they had raised in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 55).
14. Firstly, an examination of the case files of the seven applicants mentioned above reveals that contrary to the Government’s claim, they have expressly raised their complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the application forms submitted to the Constitutional Court. Secondly, as for the remaining objections relating to all applicants, the Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 57-64) and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
15. The Court further considers, having regard to its findings in the cases of Baş and Turan and Others (both cited above, §§ 143-158 and §§ 79-96, respectively), that the pre-trial detention of the applicants had not taken place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that, therefore, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention. Moreover, while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye –, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (see Baş, cited above, §§ 115-116 and §§ 159-162, and Turan and Others, cited above, §§ 91 and 95).
OTHER COMPLAINTS16. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Article 8 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 98).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. The applicants, except for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question also claimed pecuniary damage, corresponding mainly to their loss of earnings resulting from their dismissal, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
18. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
19. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑107), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, save for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, which is to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
14347/17
Ayvaz v. Türkiye
27/01/2017
Emre AYVAZ
1985
Denizli
Turkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
2.
14626/17
Aydın v. Türkiye
12/01/2017
Serkan AYDIN
1977
Ankara
Turkish
Memnune AKYILDIZ
3.
41660/17
Uslu v. Türkiye
17/05/2017
Mustafa USLU
1984
Düzce
Turkish
Ramazan SÖYLER
4.
41894/17
Turhal v. Türkiye
07/04/2017
Ramazan TURHAL
1978
Sinop
Turkish
Derya ÇELİK
5.
43590/17
Aydoğan v. Türkiye
04/04/2017
Bülent AYDOĞAN
1977
Ankara
Turkish
Erhan ÖZEN
6.
45007/17
Çağlıyan v. Türkiye
03/05/2017
Ahmet ÇAĞLIYAN
1982
İzmir
Turkish
Ömer Faruk DOĞAN
7.
49247/17
Çelik v. Türkiye
24/03/2017
Mehmet Üstün ÇELİK
1987
Muş
Turkish
Mehmet ÖZKAN
8.
49743/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
27/04/2017
Doğan ŞAHİN
1970
Kayseri
Turkish
Burak BALCI
9.
61445/17
Selvi Kıllıbaş v. Türkiye
01/06/2017
Özlem SELVİ KILLIBAŞ
1980
ŞANLIURFA
Turkish
İbrahim Halil TÜYSÜZ
10.
62123/17
Uslan v. Türkiye
26/04/2017
Hüseyin USLAN
1982
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Elif Nurbanu OR
11.
63687/17
Sepetler v. Türkiye
09/06/2017
İbrahim SEPETLER
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
12.
64047/17
Kablan v. Türkiye
24/01/2017
Erol KABLAN
1982
Sakarya
Turkish
13.
71343/17
Yolaçar v. Türkiye
15/09/2017
Nevzat YOLAÇAR
1979
Istanbul
Turkish
Fatma ALBAYRAK
14.
79841/17
Balkaya v. Türkiye
27/10/2017
Ramazan BALKAYA
1982
Kırşehir
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
15.
83091/17
Karakuş v. Türkiye
15/06/2017
Mehmet KARAKUŞ
1977
Samsun
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
16.
6833/18
Patarya v. Türkiye
24/01/2018
Orhan PATARYA
1987
Kütahya
Turkish
Okan GÜNEL
17.
9907/18
Akdemir v. Türkiye
05/02/2018
Togay AKDEMİR
1977
Istanbul
Turkish
Gülşen ZENGİN
18.
10612/18
Bölükbaş v. Türkiye
13/02/2018
Tonguç BÖLÜKBAŞ
1976
Istanbul
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
19.
10778/18
Zorlu v. Türkiye
09/02/2018
Ali ZORLU
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Xavier LABBEE
20.
16030/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
15/03/2018
Özay YILDIRIM
1983
Ankara
Turkish
Fatih DÖNMEZ
21.
19873/18
Kaplan v. Türkiye
11/04/2018
Mete KAPLAN
1988
Manisa
Turkish
22.
21049/18
Kuş v. Türkiye
25/04/2018
Nazir KUŞ
1982
Manisa
Turkish
İrem TATLIDEDE
23.
22157/18
Özdemir v. Türkiye
04/05/2018
Kenan ÖZDEMİR
1966
Kayseri
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
24.
26332/18
Gazioğlu v. Türkiye
14/05/2018
Mikail GAZİOĞLU
1990
Konya
Turkish
Fatih KAYA
25.
29589/18
Yıldız v. Türkiye
11/06/2018
Maksut YILDIZ
1982
Gaziantep
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
26.
32404/18
Kılıç v. Türkiye
19/06/2018
Ahmet KILIÇ
1990
Istanbul
Turkish
Gamze AKSOY
27.
43688/18
Yavuz v. Türkiye
05/09/2018
Mehmet YAVUZ
1979
Kocaeli
Turkish
Murat YILMAZ
28.
43956/18
Bozyiğit v. Türkiye
05/09/2018
Ömer BOZYİĞİT
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Kamile KILDAN
29.
45059/18
Görenez v. Türkiye
18/09/2018
Halime GÖRENEZ
1987
Manisa Akhisar
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
30.
47603/18
Demiröz v. Türkiye
27/09/2018
Mehmet Sait DEMİRÖZ
1964
Konya
Turkish
Süleyman Serdar BALKANLI
31.
54235/18
Zengin v. Türkiye
12/10/2018
İbrahim ZENGİN
1968
Kirikkale
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
32.
54713/18
Bekler v. Türkiye
12/10/2018
Arif BEKLER
1968
Ankara
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
33.
59564/18
Akbaba v. Türkiye
26/11/2018
Ahmet AKBABA
1979
İzmir
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
34.
6970/19
Yıldızeli v. Türkiye
18/01/2018
Ahmet YILDIZELİ
1969
Sivas
Turkish
Fatih SARIKUŞ
35.
9217/19
Gümüş v. Türkiye
01/02/2019
Nurcan GÜMÜŞ
1980
Konya
Turkish
36.
10884/19
Tutal v. Türkiye
04/02/2019
Erhan TUTAL
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN
37.
11344/19
Özkan v. Türkiye
13/02/2019
Ömer Taha ÖZKAN
1981
Manisa
Turkish
Fatma BAHAR ÖZKAN
38.
13104/19
Cambolat v. Türkiye
13/02/2019
Yeliz CAMBOLAT
1980
Gaziantep
Turkish
Melek KOGYİĞİT
39.
15742/19
Büyük v. Türkiye
05/03/2019
Samet BÜYÜK
1987
Mardin
Turkish
Cenk Berker PARDOĞAN
40.
15783/19
Aydın v. Türkiye
27/02/2019
Yunus AYDIN
1986
Ankara
Turkish
Memnune AKYILDIZ
41.
15883/19
Poyrazoğlu v. Türkiye
07/03/2019
Pınar POYRAZOĞLU
1972
Osmaniye
Turkish
Melek KOÇYİĞİT
42.
22696/19
Serter v. Türkiye
22/04/2019
Hüseyin SERTER
1964
Ankara
Turkish
Zeynep Sacide SERTER
43.
23692/19
Cengiz v. Türkiye
18/04/2019
Ahmet CENGİZ
1966
İzmir
Turkish
Ömer Furkan CENGİZ
44.
25975/19
Şengönül v. Türkiye
25/04/2019
Salih ŞENGÖNÜL
1984
Malatya
Turkish
Semih Onur DANACI
45.
26715/19
Coşar v. Türkiye
06/05/2019
Aykut COŞAR
1989
Gaziantep
Turkish
Melek KOÇYİĞİT
46.
36192/19
Ertan v. Türkiye
17/06/2019
Ali ERTAN
1968
Samsun
Turkish
47.
36993/19
Akman v. Türkiye
03/07/2019
Muhittin AKMAN
1975
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞIN
48.
45663/19
Zorlu v. Türkiye
15/08/2019
Uğur ZORLU
1970
Mardin
Turkish
49.
46744/19
Güney v. Türkiye
15/08/2019
Tarık GÜNEY
1972
Bartın
Turkish
50.
51877/19
Süzer v. Türkiye
04/09/2019
Emrah SÜZER
1988
Sakarya
Turkish
51.
54509/19
Subaşı v. Türkiye
11/09/2019
Mehmet SUBAŞI
1983
Adana
Turkish
Mustafa YELBEY
52.
54772/19
Kukul v. Türkiye
01/10/2019
Metin KUKUL
1975
Istanbul
Turkish
53.
61473/19
Benli v. Türkiye
11/11/2019
Recep BENLİ
1975
İzmir
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDIBI
54.
61485/19
Ata v. Türkiye
14/11/2019
Yener ATA
1989
Edirne
Turkish
Aydın ÖZDEMIR
55.
62714/19
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
08/11/2019
Samet YILMAZ
1989
Gaziantep
Turkish
56.
5767/20
Gülbaş v. Türkiye
26/11/2019
Cüneyt GÜLBAŞ
1976
Istanbul
Turkish
57.
7969/20
Girgin v. Türkiye
15/01/2020
Ali GİRGİN
1971
Aydın
Turkish
Mustafa TUNA
58.
9343/20
Özmen v. Türkiye
04/02/2020
Adem ÖZMEN
1985
Istanbul
Turkish
Burcu BÖLÜKBAŞI
59.
10681/20
Cebiş v. Türkiye
10/02/2020
Yalçın ÇEBİŞ
1971
İzmir
Turkish
Şerafettin GÜCÜ
60.
11500/20
Karaaslan v. Türkiye
13/02/2020
Ahmet Bülent KARAASLAN
1980
Denizli
Turkish
61.
11663/20
Koyuncu v. Türkiye
13/02/2020
Ruhi KOYUNCU
1974
Kocaeli
Turkish
Nurettin TEMUR
62.
11664/20
Ayar v. Türkiye
18/02/2020
Ertuğrul AYAR
1972
Istanbul
Turkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
63.
12883/20
Kaygın v. Türkiye
20/02/2020
Mehmet KAYGIN
1968
Kayseri
Turkish
Mustafa Uğur SOYGÜLLÜCÜ
64.
13576/20
Küçükkaplan v. Türkiye
23/01/2020
Mehmet KÜÇÜKKAPLAN
1988
Konya
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
65.
13779/20
Öz v. Türkiye
29/02/2020
Bayram ÖZ
1977
Karabük
Turkish
Burcu HAS
66.
13824/20
Akdamar v. Türkiye
07/03/2020
Türkşen AKDAMAR
1969
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Alperen AKDAMAR
67.
14846/20
Karagöz v. Türkiye
28/02/2020
Yusuf KARAGÖZ
1984
Nevşehir
Turkish
Yunus Emre ÖZKAN
68.
14874/20
Turgut v. Türkiye
04/03/2020
Abdullah TURGUT
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Rukiye COŞGUN
69.
14972/20
Erol v. Türkiye
17/01/2020
Abdulkadir EROL
1967
Istanbul
Turkish
70.
15740/20
Şua v. Türkiye
16/03/2020
İbrahim Halil ŞUA
1974
Istanbul
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
71.
16141/20
Sivri v. Türkiye
31/03/2020
Sinan SİVRİ
1969
Adana
Turkish
Halil KIZILYAR
72.
16243/20
Barut v. Türkiye
27/03/2020
Özkan BARUT
1981
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Halime BARUT
73.
16784/20
Tankişi v. Türkiye
26/03/2020
Mutlu TANKİŞİ
1989
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish
Meryem YAŞAR KARAYAZGAN
74.
17012/20
Söyler v. Türkiye
01/04/2020
Ramazan SÖYLER
1985
Kayseri
Turkish
Enver BALTÜRK
75.
17126/20
Bozkurt v. Türkiye
24/03/2020
Özgür BOZKURT
1977
Aksaray
Turkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
76.
19143/20
Uslu v. Türkiye
07/05/2020
Mustafa USLU
1970
Ankara
Turkish
Zafer İRAZ
77.
19656/20
Gülleci Demir v. Türkiye
16/04/2020
Gonca GÜLLECİ DEMİR
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
78.
20126/20
Gündoğdu v. Türkiye
15/05/2020
Muhammed GÜNDOĞDU
1984
Istanbul
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
79.
20135/20
İhtiyar v. Türkiye
15/05/2020
Önder İHTİYAR
1980
Trabzon
Turkish
Mehmet ARI
80.
20587/20
Kuzgun v. Türkiye
16/01/2020
Ersan KUZGUN
1984
Kırklareli
Turkish
Cebrail Eren KAYNAR
81.
21061/20
Ceran v. Türkiye
05/05/2020
Hakan CERAN
1977
Kayseri
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
82.
21062/20
Akgün v. Türkiye
20/05/2020
Fahrettin AKGÜN
1980
Kütahya
Turkish
Fatma SEVER AKGÜN
83.
21088/20
Borucu v. Türkiye
05/05/2020
Metin BORUCU
1968
Izmir
Turkish
Oğuzhan AŞLIK
84.
21123/20
Girdi v. Türkiye
06/05/2020
Seyfettin GİRDİ
1988
Istanbul
Turkish
Fatma BABAYİĞİT
85.
21367/20
Köylü v. Türkiye
22/05/2020
Mustafa KÖYLÜ
1971
Istanbul
Turkish
86.
21551/20
Güngör v. Türkiye
23/03/2020
Mesut GÜNGÖR
1969
KIRIKKALE
Turkish
Ahmet AKSOY
87.
21749/20
Demir v. Türkiye
27/04/2020
Yavuz DEMİR
1987
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
88.
22243/20
Çelik v. Türkiye
03/03/2020
Noyan ÇELİK
1978
Kocaeli
Turkish
Mehmet Nazım GENÇTÜRK
89.
22923/20
Özdemir v. Türkiye
08/06/2020
Mustafa ÖZDEMİR
1989
Ankara
Turkish
90.
22952/20
Mendilcioğlu v. Türkiye
28/01/2020
Kıymet Sema MENDİLCİOĞLU
1975
Denizli
Turkish
İsmail KAPLAN
91.
22956/20
Çalışkan v. Türkiye
08/06/2020
İsmail ÇALIŞKAN
1982
Aksaray
Turkish
Muhammet GÜNEY
92.
23007/20
Sönmez v. Türkiye
07/04/2020
Sebati SÖNMEZ
1979
Antalya
Turkish
93.
23436/20
Aslan v. Türkiye
22/05/2020
Faruk ASLAN
1974
Ankara
Turkish
Gülşen ZENGİN
94.
24030/20
Çıtak v. Türkiye
12/06/2020
İsmail ÇITAK
1987
Aksaray
Turkish
Muhammet GÜNEY
95.
25514/20
Dündar v. Türkiye
20/04/2020
Olcay DÜNDAR
1980
Bursa
Turkish
96.
26039/20
Kuşku v. Türkiye
25/06/2020
Ersin KUŞKU
1985
Bursa
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
97.
26042/20
Sefer v. Türkiye
25/06/2020
Doğan SEFER
1976
Balıkesir
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
98.
26146/20
Bilge v. Türkiye
12/06/2020
Mehmet Salih BİLGE
1979
Sivas
Turkish
Meryem GÜNAY
99.
26337/20
Aslan v. Türkiye
05/06/2020
Ramazan ASLAN
1975
Manisa
Turkish
Oğuz İÇİER
100.
27067/20
Kızılay v. Türkiye
15/02/2020
Bilgin KIZILAY
1976
Istanbul
Turkish
Nevzat AKBİLEK
101.
29062/20
Gökçe v. Türkiye
02/07/2020
Murat GÖKÇE
1967
Ankara
Turkish
Fatih DÖNMEZ
102.
29753/20
Bülbül v. Türkiye
25/06/2020
Barış BÜLBÜL
1979
Istanbul
Turkish
Bilal KÜÇÜKŞENGÜN
103.
29994/20
Bütün v. Türkiye
26/06/2020
Selçuk BÜTÜN
1976
Manisa
Turkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
104.
30003/20
Bakay v. Türkiye
02/07/2020
Bekir BAKAY
1977
Mersin
Turkish
Gülcan BERÇEM COŞKUN
105.
30010/20
Polat v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Erhan POLAT
1968
Ankara
Turkish
Hülya POLAT
106.
30329/20
Uçar v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Cemalettin UÇAR
1973
Kayseri
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
107.
32774/20
Özel v. Türkiye
20/07/2020
Ali ÖZEL
1972
Kayseri
Turkish
Hacer ŞAHİN
108.
34445/20
Baş v. Türkiye
14/07/2020
Salih BAŞ
1977
Tokat
Turkish
109.
34682/20
Kebeşoglu v. Türkiye
04/06/2020
Halil İbrahim KEBEŞOĞLU
1972
Kayseri
Turkish
İbrahim Talha DEMİRCAN
110.
34959/20
Özkarslı v. Türkiye
07/08/2020
Oğuz ÖZKARSLI
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Ayşe Sümeyye BEKLEYEN
111.
36651/20
Bülbül v. Türkiye
10/08/2020
Davut BÜLBÜL
1977
Gaziantep
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
112.
36837/20
Menengiç v. Türkiye
07/08/2020
Erdal MENENGİÇ
1985
Ankara
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
113.
36884/20
Çengeloğlu v. Türkiye
21/08/2020
Enes ÇENGELOĞLU
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Ömer Faruk ERGÜN
114.
37234/20
Sevdim v. Türkiye
11/08/2020
Ali Erdem SEVDİM
1977
Gaziantep
Turkish
Yekta Mustafa POLAT
115.
37894/20
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
18/08/2020
Ömer YILMAZ
1977
Ankara
Turkish
Ömer Faruk ERGÜN
116.
38272/20
Aygün v. Türkiye
20/08/2020
Fatih AYGÜN
1987
Trabzon
Turkish
Yasemin BAL
117.
38305/20
Arslantürk v. Türkiye
13/08/2020
Samet ARSLANTÜRK
1989
Istanbul
Turkish
Elif ARSLANTÜRK
118.
41241/20
Aslan v. Türkiye
01/07/2020
Atilla ASLAN
1965
Bursa
Turkish
Emine Feyza ASLAN HERDEM
119.
41402/20
Pehlivan v. Türkiye
27/08/2020
Sercan PEHLİVAN
1989
Samsun
Turkish
120.
43083/20
Kılınç v. Türkiye
15/09/2020
Erhan KILINÇ
1979
Manisa
Turkish
Kadriye TÜMEN
121.
43232/20
Karaarslan v. Türkiye
08/09/2020
Abdulkadir KARAARSLAN
1983
Malatya
Turkish
Gizem Tugce KARAARSLAN
122.
49609/20
Coşkun v. Türkiye
26/10/2020
Şenol COŞKUN
1976
Mersin
Turkish
123.
50209/20
Kanlı v. Türkiye
28/08/2020
Hasan KANLI
1967
Ankara
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
124.
51555/20
Gültekin v. Türkiye
30/06/2020
Özkan GÜLTEKİN
1974
Ankara
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
125.
52598/20
İnal v. Türkiye
24/11/2020
Erhan İNAL
1977
Balikesir
Turkish
Yakup GÖNEN
126.
54011/20
Baysal v. Türkiye
27/08/2020
Mustafa BAYSAL
1969
İstanbul
Turkish
Gülhan TABAK
127.
54412/20
Göztaş v. Türkiye
25/11/2020
Kenan GÖZTAŞ
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
128.
54426/20
Taşdelen v. Türkiye
19/10/2020
Okan TAŞDELEN
1978
Ankara
Turkish
129.
3160/21
Çapa v. Türkiye
08/12/2020
Ömer ÇAPA
1980
Edirne
Turkish
Nevzat AKBİLEK
130.
6976/21
Ekim v. Türkiye
14/01/2021
Gamze EKİM
1980
Osmaniye
Turkish
Habibe BULUT
131.
9539/21
Aydın v. Türkiye
17/11/2020
Asil AYDIN
1978
Istanbul
Turkish
Fatma BABAYİĞİT